filtermadg (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

so futuristic

Andymayell (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Thanks for your points and I take on your points of view with appreciation of a good debate. You are right, it could be a realistic future, but this is not the only reason I do not like it. The acting on the part of Sean Young and Harrison is wooden (perhaps because they are [supposed to be] replicants!). My main criticism, apologisies for not saying before, is for me the cinema experience should be gripping and life changing and this ambiguous and pretentious film does not do it for me!

GlobeeCat (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Andy, the second reason why I think your criticisms of Blade Runner (based on your criteria of a "realistic future") don't hold water is because in many parts of the world, particularly East Asia, Ridley Scott's vision is in fact kind of accurate: Sprawling metropolitan areas consumed by pollution gone wild, decay with a patina of glitzy high-tech and a society cleaved between extreme haves and have nots, etc. Take a look at Shanghai, Seoul, Hong Kong...Ridley Scott's vision is a valid one.

GlobeeCat (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

...just continuing on my last post, people 30 years from now could look at Children of Men (which, btw, I agree is a fantstic film) and think "this view of the world is total crap based on where we are today" - Doesn't make the original vision any less trendsetting, emotionally evocative/provocative and therefore a truly great film. You can't measure the validity of scifi films purely (or even significantly) on the basis of their real predictive ability. That would make the genre pretty boring.

GlobeeCat (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Andy, sounds u r defining "best sci fi film" by how "realistic" the vision of the future looks. If so, ur criticisms don't hold water for 2 reasons: 1) Such films typically present their vision based on straight-line extrapolation from current trends. naturally, Children of Men, a very recent film with its War on Terror-focused themes would capture what seems "realistic" today. But Blade Runner captured what seemed realistic in the 80s: nuclear war aftermath, pollution run rampant, US decline.

PanchitoPistoles (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Pure magic.

ufcjoel1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

They are all in the Same Genre though. AFI puts 2001 on top and Blade Runner 6th. I would put BR at #3 maybe behind Star Wars. Planet of the Apes was awesome also. Theres no arguing here, I love Blade Runner.

Leuchtturm666 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

But you can not Complain Blade Runner with 2001! Thats are Two Different Movies!!!

reniisgod (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Like Ridley said. "If you are not sucked in by the opening scene, you quite simply are not there" That is your opinion though. and regardless of an individuals opinion, the general consensus made by people who know about the movie, is that it is a unique and timeless classic. granted, the consensus is a smaller one than for movies like terminator or alien, etc. but that doesn't detract from the quality of the movie, it just means it isn't for everyone.

ufcjoel1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Yeah gives me goosebumps too and the ending scene is fantastic also. Agreed on being one of the best sci fi movies ever. I may put 2001 ahead of it though